Mullite replaces platinum, a precious metal that is expensive to mine and limited in supply

University of Texas at Dallas scientists found that a material called mullite, which is from a family of oxides, could replace platinum on diesel exhaust from automotives.

Platinum has been the go-to material for diesel vehicles because diesel exhaust emits more nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxode than gasoline vehicles (however, diesel engines are generally more efficient). To reduce the amount of these pollutants from diesel exhaust, platinum is commonly used.

The problem is that platinum is a precious metal, mainly because it is limited and very expensive to mine. For 10 tons of platinum ore mined, only 1 ounce is usually usable.

Enter Dr. Kyeongjae Cho, study leader and professor of materials science and engineering and physics at UT Dallas. He and a team of researchers set out to find the alternative, and discovered that mullite was exactly what the doctor ordered.

After synthesizing mullite and using computer models to see how it consumes nitric oxide/nitrogen dioxode, it was discovered that an oxygen-based composition of mullite is not only cheaper to produce than platinum, but it also reduces diesel exhaust pollution 45 percent more than platinum.

"Our goal to move completely away from precious metals and replace them with oxides that can be seen commonly in the environment has been achieved," said Cho. "We've found new possibilities to create renewable, clean energy technology by designing new functional materials without being limited by the supply of precious metals."

This new mullite discovery is already being commercialized as Noxicat.

It's a bit more than a "ruling I don't like". Robert's just handed the Federal Government supreme UNLIMITED power over it's citizens. Something the Constitution was originally designed to prevent. And what Robert's took an oath to uphold, making him a traitor.

America as we know it died the day he made that ruling. You're just too stupid to see it.

America will collapse just like EVERY empire in the history of this planet has collapsed when it's power becomes consolidated.

This isn't some "right wing" psycho prediction. This is an understanding of human nature and knowledge of history. The Founders understood that liberty, freedom, and rights were NOT historically commonplace when it comes to government's made by man. America is the exception to the rule. Or rather, was.

"We have given you a republic, if you can keep it"

Why do you think Franklin meant? And why did challenge future generations to "keep it". And do you think we're doing a good job of keeping it?

You're doing a great job of turning the Republic into a plutocracy, but I'm not sure the ACA decision is the signal event on that train ride (which has been building up steam for quite some time).

Another threat to the Republic could be internal fracture, and when supreme court decisions and policy debates become inflicted with words like "treason", I wonder if the language you use is perhaps a greater signifier of a threat to the Republic than the ACA decision could ever be...

quote: I wonder if the language you use is perhaps a greater signifier of a threat to the Republic than the ACA decision could ever be...

This is America, sir. It's not a "threat" to exercise your First Amendment rights. That's why it's the First one, not the second or third or fifth.

Honestly how dare you. If my language makes you uncomfortable, fine. But to say it's a "bigger" threat than ACA is frankly insanity.

quote: but I'm not sure the ACA decision is the signal event on that train ride (which has been building up steam for quite some time).

This is definitely a tide-turner. It's true that we have been sliding down this path for some time, which you've pointed out. Which makes it all the more baffling why you seem to have an issue with someone being alarmed at this.

The ACA decision is so huge because THIS is what they've been wanting. Direct unilateral control of the American population at the Federal level. Something the Constitution desperately works to prevent. They've nibbled at it with gross Commerce Clause abuse, but usually when they reach this far, the Supreme Court has been there to slap them back a bit.

However what this decision does is grant Congress and the Presidency, for the foreseeable future, unlimited power to control it's citizens in almost any way possible. All they have to do is call it a "tax", and almost anything can be mandated. This tramples States Rights, and the Constitutions promise of their Sovereignty. If the ACA is "legal", than almost ANYTHING designed similarly is now "legal" too.

Simply put, this gives the Government unlimited mandate power over the citizens of this country. I think you understand this and that the Constitution was against that, your problem is you don't see this as a bad thing.

wow you're really good at feigning outrage. Of course I can't take seriously your claim to be offended since you so easily toss out things like the following:

"You're just too stupid to see it"

"..is frankly insanity"

Dial back the outrage machine a tad and remember my point wasn't that YOUR PARTICULAR words were a "bigger threat" than the ACA, but that generally speaking, a fractured political environment where policy debates become grounds for people to think TREASON has been committed could be a signifier of internal dissension commensurate with eventual internal conflict of arms. After all, we put traitors to DEATH, do we not? Would not civil war be a greater threat to the republic than a government mandate power?

As for your last point:

quote: Simply put, this gives the Government unlimited mandate power over the citizens of this country. I think you understand this and that the Constitution was against that, your problem is you don't see this as a bad thing.

I don't claim to possess the constitutional knowledge to contradict the Roberts decision and recognize that constitutional rights can be abridged when certain judicial tests are met - that being said, I wonder why a decision by the Supreme Court on matters of health care would be seen as a greater violation of the guarantees of the constitution by you and your cohort when Obama claims the power of Kings to draw up secret kill lists which include the names of American citizens.

So where are your constitutional priorities? A government desire to cover all its citizens w/ health care is a great threat than secret kill list drawn up by the President with no review?

Would you trust Michael Moore with the power to draw up a list of American citizens to kill?

Oh wait I forgot who I'm talking to: the guy who would put Justice Roberts at the top of his kill list!

Do you understand legal precedence? This isn't JUST about Health Care. Hello?

ACA isn't even about Health Care anyway. It's all about the redistribution of wealth on a massive scale. That's all socialized medicine does. But I digress.

quote: Would not civil war be a greater threat to the republic than a government mandate power?

If the right side wins, no. No it's not. An outright war with England is why we're here in the first place, after all.

However who's even talking about that? Calling 5 justices traitors is going to cause a civil war now?

You know it's really great that you just want to sit here and over-intellectualize this, but I'm the one who has to live with these decisions and face their consequences.

quote: I wonder why a decision by the Supreme Court on matters of health care would be seen as a greater violation of the guarantees of the constitution by you and your cohort when Obama claims the power of Kings to draw up secret kill lists which include the names of American citizens.

That's a pretty poor Red Herring you realize? You're presenting an either/or debate when none such existed. BOTH are obviously things to be against.

quote: Oh wait I forgot who I'm talking to: the guy who would put Justice Roberts at the top of his kill list!

Don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing and you know it. I would never advocate someone be murdered.

I just might not shed any tears if it happened to certain individuals. That's a big difference. Plus I was obviously blowing off steam, get a grip.

quote: Go ahead and worry about fascism then...

I seem to recall Liberals talking about assassinating Bush, and even making movies about this happening while he was in office, and nobody had a problem with that. Hell it was downright "patriotic" then.

I am pretty sure i know why he ruled the way he did its the fact that Supreme Court Justices are not legislators. In the past Supreme court rulings have been have been given the god like status of being unchallengeable which is just not the case. What he did was hand the decision on this legislation back to the people where it belongs so that the legislative branch is forced to do the peoples bidding fi that's what they really want and repeal the bill properly. I think the guy is a genius and the larger implication of this ruling will be made evident in history; its a hell of a gamble but in the long run the health of our republic as a whole will benefit from it.

quote: What he did was hand the decision on this legislation back to the people where it belongs so that the legislative branch is forced to do the peoples bidding fi that's what they really want and repeal the bill properly.

Yes yes I've heard this argument before. If this was the case why even have a Supreme Court? If clearly Unconstitutional laws remain law in the thin hope that legislatures will "do the right thing" and see the error of their ways. Or even more unlikely, listen to the people?

The Constitution GIVES the Supreme Court the power to keep Congressional and Legislative power in check. That's it's entire purpose. It's one of the most important checks and balances we have.

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton said " whenever a particular statute contravenes the constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter, and disregard the former."

In other words, one of the Supreme Court’s jobs is to compare laws to the Constitution, and to demolish laws that violate the Constitution.

Basically you're saying just let the Legislative branch do whatever the hell it wants because things will just magically work out in the end. Uhhh, okay.

Hardly, lately the Supreme Court and other federal courts have been used to pretty much write law; that as you know that was never their intended purpose. Already the Supreme Court votes along party lines with the exception of justice Kennedy who seems to vote with which way the wind blows on that given day; I question the idea of check and balances with a supreme court setup this way. That being said I believe that Chief justice Roberts feels the same and this is his vain attempt to remove the artificial power of the Supreme Court. If the bill stands the constitutional test and then is later repealed then its dead for all eternity and congress has done its job. If the Supreme Court nullified the bill then we would have years of partisan bickering about how it should be implemented properly to pass the constitutional test. Considering what a massive expansion of the nanny state the bill causes and the complete erosion of rights I think he felt it was a worthwhile gamble considering that it is still quite possible to bring up other aspects of this bill at a later date for scrutiny by the supreme court if it doesn’t get repealed in the mean time. Such as the mandatory birth control provisions that religious organizations are complaining about now which is clearly a violation of the 1st amendment. Thats just a few of the issues with the bill we know about Chief Justice Roberts may have found something else in the bill that will not stand the constitutional test and is just waiting for someone to find that golden nugget.